
**% '-Wis: ***%> *° 

^> "• <\* °* ^* V % *^° \^ % 



i 




o_ * 













♦ o at « L ' • * "^ n^ o - o *t* *\ > ■ 



o > 









*+ f 0* '.•?•. *o '^ .-•♦<* " „*° ... \ 



% '"' 4 \* °* ♦'""■ 


































& V o 



V . tf 



>o? 





*..•• A 




t^ o^ °V 




* . . s * A 



r*+. «1 



<Sv 



:£Mwr* '^- - 



Some Mistakes 



of 



Col. Ingersoll 

A LECTURE 




SAMUEL W. SPARKS 

MEMBER OF THE NEW JERSEY BAR 
CAMDEN, N. J. 

ii {[TO the Christian, reclining in the arm-chair of dozing age, 
the sunset of life presents a scene of tranquil enjoyment — 
of obedient appetite — of well regulated affections — of maturity 
in knowledge — a state of ease, riding at anchor, after a busy t 
and tempestuous life — the interval of repose between the hurry' 
and end, and a calm preparation for immortality." 



PRICE 10 CENTS 



SOME MISTAKES 



OF 



COL. INGERSOLL 



A LECTURE 






/ 



SAMUEL W. SPARKS 



MEMBER OF THE NEW JERSEY BAR 



CAMDEN, N. J. 



**£* 



^^©ffVC* OF **V 

(-NOV 23 1897 
ofCo# 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S97, by 

Samuel W. Sparks, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress^ at 

Washington, D. C. 



hta Vit^iVED 



^ 



£ V U1 



1897. 

J. MILLIETTE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. 

Camden, N. J. 



Ladies and Gentlemen : 

Reason is treasured by Mr. Ingersoll as 
the only guiding star for humanity, in this life. It 
is also the philosophy of atheism that admits of no 
exception. They claim it to be absolute and correct. 
But facts are inexorable things, and although they 
may be shown in different colorings, they ever retain 
that same character, observable to him who has the 
brains and patience to think a posteori. I accord to the 
argument that Reason is the most beautiful flower that 
has ever grown atop of the mound of human dis- 
appointments, but it has, at the same time, been the 
most lecherous and treacherous foe that has ever 
impeded the progress of mankind. 

When philosophically analyzed it is apparent 
that one reasons according to the amount and qual- 
ity of his brain ; according to the amount and qual- 
ity of his learning, and all super enjoined by en- 
vironment. Men have reasoned differently in all 
ages, but the most pronounced epoch of the world, 
when human reason ascended the throne and took 
hold of the sceptre of government, was when France 
thought to unburden itself of a corrupt clergy. In 



that instance, Reason was the originator of th& 
memorable Reign of Terror. It wore its deepest 
red while dictating that awful drama, Its decrees 
were registered on fences, such as " There is no God 
but Reason." " Man is responsible to himself only " 
" There is no future punishment ; all there is, is now." 
Brave men, servants, suitors and disciples of the- 
Goddess proclaimed their loyalty to the throne by 
carrying pockets filled with human ears, or wearing 
infants' fingers in their hats. Female subjects 
proved their loyalty by paying large sums for the 
ghastly privilege of sitting beside the guillotine with 
their knitting and witnessing the terrible work of 
the rapid knife as it severed heads from thousands 
of the bodies of victims. They enjoyed the breeze 
from the red river of human blood that flowed at 
their feet. Reason exercised its power untram- 
melled. Men and women tied together were dropped 
into the sea, and the act dubbed a " Republican 
baptism." Boat loads of innocent babes were taken 
to sea and the vessel sunk to satisfy this monarch* 
All this and ten thousand more horrible crimes were 
enacted when the lt Subaltern of Corsica," Napoleon, 
whom Ingersoll hates, took hold of the reins of state 
and brought the infuriated beast of murder to its 
haunches, and held it there until the church could 



again be established with as much of the simplicity 
of the doctrines of Christ as humanity bad ability 
to accept. 

Man is a helpless creature that moves only 
within his environment. The finite is hemmed by 
the infinite. The character of man has been, in all 
ages, just what his environments made him. At 
different times in his history we find him enjoying 
the advantages of civilization, while at other times 
he is in abject sWery, a scholar, a savage, a peace- 
maker and a warrior, a millionaire and a pauper, a 
Christian and an infidel, an atheist and an idolater, 
but at all times a medley of contradictions. And 
this is the article with which we are to reason, and 
by reasoning solve, if possible, the problem of the 
rights of man. The earliest information of this 
wonderful part of creation represents him in a state 
of savagery. Before law was, he is seen in the 
forests, living in the butts of trees and in caverns, 
and, for the sake of self preservation or protection, 
he meets with his fellows and selects for a leader the 
tallest among them, because of his apparent superior 
physical powers. Whether this period was the low 
tide or the rise and fall of humanity I do not know. 
Whether it was the beginning, the awakening, of 
human reasoning, or the end of a magnificent civi- 



6 

lization, I am equally ignorant. Suffice it to say 
that the preceding time is buried in the sands of 
oblivion, and so far no light has been thrown into 
those dark recesses. The complete history of man 
has never been, and never will be, written by man, 
and we are as much in doubt of his ancestry as we 
are mystified at the results of his doings. Beyond 
his age of savagery and periods of civilization we 
behold him living, in pre-historic times, in manner 
known as Lake Dwellers. In their Kitchen-Middens, 
where are found the remains of many animals, there 
is a conspicuous absence of human remains, proving 
by the best possible evidence that man was not 
always cannibalistic; and it does seem that the 
nearer we are permitted to approach the alleged 
period in which Shem, Ham and Japhet lived, the' 
better was the condition of the race. But, beyond 
and since, almost every valuable fact seems to be 
handed down to us wrapped in a shroud of doubt 
and mystery. History must have commenced with 
the birth of tradition — that system in which the 
precious truths of humanity were entrusted to the 
care of the most unreliable of couriers, the memory — 
and to it alone must we look for an attempted 
authentication of fact. 

History, then, like many of the so called sciences, 



is ofttimes built upon speculative theories, and hence 
always was and always will be subject to impeachment. 
When dealing with anything ancient all men 
should accord to it the right to be heard in its own 
defence, but it can never be right to try ancient 
things by modern law. What would the brain of 
Ingersoll have produced had he lived in the dark 
ages? There may have been many men of his 
calibre, in those days, whose history has never been 
written, and they too must "have been subject and 
under the control of their environments. By what 
principle of right can Ingersoll claim to possess the 
brain standard of justice, by which all men in all 
ages are to be judged ? It may be true that he has 
a higher one than many in the past, but who is to 
say that he has a higher one than the future may 
produce? If the Roman Catholic Church had been 
tried by its times, the infamy charged to it would 
have been moderated by the existing conditions. 
When tried by the light of the present age, it is 
found to be a wanderer from the path of the true 
doctrines of Christ. It appears to be filled with su- 
perstitious fallacies ; and nursed by the ignorant and 
uncultivated classes, it became an obstacle in the 
way of progress ; but cruel enactments do not appear 
of recent date as of the past. 



8 

As a rule, agnostics do not recognize a distinc- 
tion between professing Christians and Christians. 
Mankind has ever been prone to do injury to his 
neighbor, using the shield that would best hide his 
real intention ; so that when Christ said, " I bring a 
sword," he must have foreseen what great wicked- 
ness mankind would resort to under the cover of 
righteousness. 

The intellect of man is a growth, and, in its 
progress towards civilization, has necessarily been 
subject to a fungus substance, that, on first view? 
appears to hide the original. Would it not be better 
if the brains of Ingersoll were devoted to the cause 
of man by the destroying of that fungi? Men have 
always found more pleasure in sowing tares in the 
wheatfield of life than in elevating their fellows by 
lessening their burdens. 

MOSES. 

Mr. Ingersoll devotes a great deal of his time to 
arguments that the Bible is of doubtful origin, that the 
Pentateuch was not written by Moses, and that many 
of the books contained in the Bible were not written 
by the authors to whom they have, for many cen- 
turies, been ascribed. And the Ministry spend quite 
as much time in replying as does Ingersoll in 



9 

announcing them. If there were any possibility of 
settling the dispute, the debaters might be tolerated 
and it might be looked upon with idle curiosity ; 
but as it is utterly impossible at this late day to pro- 
duce any new evidence, I cannot see the wisdom of 
discussing it. And again, what difference would it 
make if it were settled ? Does it matter who wrote 
the first five books of Moses? What is the great 
interest that Mr- Ingersoll appears to have in the 
matter ? It does not appear that, as a lawyer, he 
represents Moses. What then is his interest ? Has 
he been retained to defend the copyright of some one 
other than Moses ? If so, who is his client ? As a 
lawyer, Mr. Ingersoll should know that when one 
claims title to anything in court he cannot do so by 
depending on the weakness of defendant's title, but 
by depending on the strength of his own. If Moses 
did not write the books ascribed to him, does that 
prove that they were written by Ingersoll's client, or 
that they were not written at all? The affirmative 
is that they were written by Moses ; the negative is 
that they were written by some one else ; and until it 
is proven who that some one else is, the title must of 
necessity remain in Moses After all is said and 
done it is a matter of no importance who did write 
them. 



10 

ROMAN CATHOLICISM. 

By what criterion does he censure the Roman 
Catholic Church ? I can regret with as much sym- 
pathy as can Mr. Ingersoll the terrible cruelty in- 
flicted on our ancestors in those dark ages. I, too, 
would like to throw the blanket of philosophy over 
the smouldering ruins of that terrible monster, and 
blot from the memory of man its awful and tearful 
traditions ; but it should be remembered that knowl- 
edge of the errors of the past should serve as good 
guides for the future. When Ingersoll pitches battle 
against the enactments of the past, when he holds 
up, as an object of contempt, one of the actors in 
those bloody dramas, he has no right to place it un- 
der the magnifying glass of the nineteenth century. 
Would it be right for the father to hold his son in 
maturity responsible for acts done in infancy ? When 
children do wrong there are few men in the world 
but would associate with the act the surrounding 
influences that engendered it, and form a judgment 
according to such facts. The Judge who would cen- 
sure a man for his acts in infancy would be regarded 
as an idiot, and removed from office; and yet this 
same Ingersoll, brainy as he claims to be, places the 
Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Presbyterian 
Church, of antiquity, under the magnifying lenses of 



11 

the present, and then proceeds to pour forth from 
his fulsome vials the wrath that is in him. 

It should be remembered that men act accord- 
ing to the times in which they live, and the history 
of the race is filled with living pictures of cruelties 
that to the present condition of men would be the 
most revolting. Who can recall the many tragic 
events of the late Rebellion without wondering, 
Coul 1 they really have taken place ? Can it be pos- 
sible that within the last half of the present century 
thousands of human lives have been offered up as 
sacrifices for the security of government? I stood on 
Little Round Top, at Gettysburg, viewing the mag- 
nificent scenery that Dame Nature has so abundantly 
provided at that place. There was nothing other- 
wise attractive, nothing to surprise me, all was quiet, 
and everything seemed to be imbued with the peace- 
ful slumberings of the dead. The bugler, with his 
bugle-call, was heard nor seen more. The roll-call 
was dead in the palsied hand of the drummer-boy. 
Some old and silenced cannon marked the spot 
where some one at some time had been fighting. 

Monuments here and there dotted the surround- 
ing fields. Evidences of skilled workmanship, they, 
by their beauty, attracted the eye. On their sides 
handsomely carved words — meaningless words, born 



12 

of the coldness of marble, and made chiefly to 
weather the gale, defy the storm and to laugh at the 
tooth of Time. At our feet, beneath a clear blue 
sky, lay a nation's heroic dead. This was all. But 
directly a guide, one who had participated in that 
dreadful battle, began to demonstrate, as far as words 
can demonstrate, some of the scenes that had there 
taken place. And with a heart moved b}^ the well- 
told tales, the old veteran, with tears in his eyes, 
again plead the cause of the sleeping thousands. 
Then, and not until then, did I contemplate the 
enormity of so bloody a duel. The bugle again sent 
its warning notes across those fields, and they seemed 
to once more reverb amid those parallel hills. 
The beat of the drum filled the atmosphere, while 
the commands of the officers could be heard as they 
rent the passions of war, in their orders to charge 
bayonets, and the battle was begun ! The clash of 
steel, the rattle of musketry, the booming of cannon 
and the wild shrieks of those death-dealing contest- 
ants as they went forth on their missions of victory 
living, or to victory dead. The lowering clouds of 
powder smoke cleared away, while the eyes of the 
dying heroes closed on the vision of Victory grace- 
fully perched on the Throne of Justice. Hoary- 
headed Time, taking his eyes from a picture of Fate, 



13 

slowly arose, and, gently closing the door, the great 
American Drama was closeted with the eternities. 

Turning from the pictured scene of what had 
been, I involuntarily asked myself: Could such 
things have happened among civilized men? If 
really so, can I realize so great a factor in the his- 
tory of man ? Who is to answer for all that murder ? 
Can it be claimed that Christianity is to be charged 
with it, or shall it be placed at the credit of uncivi- 
lized man ? The Roman Catholic Church was the 
Church of its times — it was the monitor of kings and 
of princes, and, though drunken with power, it was 
nevertheless surrounded and controlled by environ- 
ments from which it had no possible escape. It has, 
therefore, the right to claim that it shall, if tried at 
all, have the right to be tried by its peers, or by the 
times in which the offences occurred. It would be 
extremely unphilosophical to imagine that the first 
church could be as good as the last church will be. 
To argue so is to say that humanity at the start did 
not need the Christian influence, and that it was 
always pure and undefiled, while all the evidence in 
the world proves the contrary. Humanity pro- 
gresses and leaves behind it a refuse that should be 
forgotten, and it can never be fair to judge the 
ignorant past by the erudite present. Would it be 



14 

justice to the slave-owners of 1850 to indict them 
under the laws of 1897? Could the black man who 
felt the cruel lash of slavery sue the master for that 
assault and battery now? 

LAW. 

One of the most audacious pretensions of Mr. 
Ingersoll is his claim and assertion that the law 
that regulates the governments of civilized nations 
is not founded upon the Scriptures, and in this he 
uses the same illogical reasoning that characterizes his 
efforts generally. His whole ability seems to be bent 
in the demolition of what is authoritatively stated, 
and the substitution of a presumption founded only 
upon his erratic statement of imaginary things. His 
ipse dixit comprises his stock in trade, and whatever 
surprising statements he makes, they are never found 
to be born of logic or founded on reason, or even so 
much as on circumstantial evidence. In reply to 
his statement on this subject I desire to relate some 
of the sayings of writers of approved authority, that 
have been sacredly cared for and handed down to 
posterity, as against which Mr. Ingersoll's arguments 
dwindle into insignificance. The first evidence that 
presents itself against him is some of the statements 
made by Macaulay in his history of England. Mr. 



15 

Macaulay has not only set the type of English 
speech, but he has founded his dissertations upon a 
rock of solid philosophy. He says : 

" The church has many times been compared 
by divines to the ark of which we read in the Book 
of Genesis ; but never was the resemblance more 
perfect than during the evil time when she alone 
rode amidst darkness and tempest on the deluge, 
beneath which all the great works of ancient power 
and wisdom lay entombed, bearing within her that 
feeble germ from which a second and more glorious 
civilization was to spring." — Macaulay 's History, 
vol. I, p. 19. 

" The Roman Church, up to three centuries ago, 
was generally favorable to science, civilization and 
good government. But during the last three cen- 
turies, to stunt the growth of the human mind has 
been her chief object." — Vide, p. 63. 

Vattel, possibly the greatest writer on inter- 
national law, is quoted in Kent's Commentaries 
as declaring that the law of nations was founded 
on the law of revelation. Prior to the Eleventh 
Century there was no international law such as 
we understand it today. There were customs of 
barbarous origin that obtained under it. Citizens of 
one part of the earth, travelling from one nation or 



16 

tribe to another, became the absolute property of 
any one in the tribe or people whom they visited. 

They were enslaved or killed at the option of 
their owner. Shipwrecked persons, cast adrift upon 
the sea, became the property of the people wherever 
fate might cast them, and subject to all the cruelties 
of slavery and death that the custom of the times 
justified. This was the universal fate of strangers, 
whether at peace or at war. The whole race of man- 
kind under the custom, seemed to be at everlasting 
war with their fellows, and peace seemed to dwell 
nowhere on the face of the globe. Athens and 
Sparta thought to make a law between them, but it 
was filled with the cruelties of antiquity. The navy 
at Athens, the finest of all antiquity, was but a 
gigantic piracy. Aristotle, the heir of Socrates and 
Plato, could not bring himself to understand the 
advantage of the exercise of humanity among 
nations. " The highest Roman law was filled with 
the rudeness of the ancients for the want of Christian 
principles of morals," says Kent. 

This state of affairs continued down to the 
period of the Sixteenth Century. Chancellor Kent, 
an unimpeachable authority, in his investigations 
of this great question, further observes that " the 
Christian nations of Europe and their descendants 



17 

were vastly superior in science and jurispru- 
dence to all others." "There can be no doubt," 
says he, " that the Christian nations, like a federa- 
tion, hung together through the gloom of the dark 
ages," and preserved the blessings of international 
law. Again, he says: " To make war upon infidels 
was for many ages a conspicuous part of European 
public law; but this was a gross, per version of the 
doctrines of Christianity." "To be a stranger 
was to be an enemy to the inhabitants of the 
world other than one's own immediate tribe." 
Manning, another of the greatest writers of the 
world on this subject, says " the law of nations 
is founded on Christianity." And so on through 
all the writings of men in all ages do we find 
that they claim for Christianity the foundation 
of this important law. Grotius, the acknowledged 
father of the law, borrowed his materials from 
the canon and ecclesiastical laws, and that, too, 
without the slightest endeavor to obscure the fact. 
Why, then, does Ingersoll, a lawyer by profession, 
lend himself to such an outrageous perversion of 
established facts ? What honorable interests does he 
exhibit ? Having the ears of a listening public, he 
corrupts the stream of knowledge. Can it be attrib- 
uted to his ignorance ? No ; for he is a lawyer, and 
2 



18 

ought to know the greatest law of the world. Should 
his rude sarcasm be taken as argument against so 
well established facts ? The solution of the matter 
is simply this : 

The law that regulates the affairs of nations is 
the most important one that ever engaged the atten- 
tion of mankind. Compared with it all other enact- 
ments drop into insignificance, and without it the 
enactments of the legislatures of the world would be 
worthless and of no avail. In that law there is a 
wisdom to which the brains and boasted intelli- 
gence of man could never attain. 

The jurists of the world have ever been too 
feeble to grapple with so momentous a question, and 
yet at the very moment when brains and reason 
failed to supply the natural demand for such a law, 
there was but one source, in the entire system of 
things, from whence the spirit of it could be drawn. 
Not among the great chieftains that illuminated the 
world with their exploits. Not from the thoughtful 
brain of the philosopher, nor from the mathematics 
of the scientist. Neither did it take root in the 
results of any of the decisive battles of the world. 
But instead the world bowed its head to the acknowl- 
edged wisdom of a meek and lowly Jewish peasant 
boy, and from him was received the law that has 



19 

blessed mankind. The law of nations is just less 
than the law that regulates the planets and directs 
the universe. Why, then, does not Ingersoll ac- 
knowledge this fact ? Can there be any other reason 
than the self-evident fact that such an acknowledg- 
ment would annihilate all the sophistical and un- 
proven statements of his doctrines ? If history is at 
all true, then it is a fact that the Bible is the rock 
upon which civilization rests and all the laws of 
civilization are founded. 

The law of nations is as a huge river whose 
waters will flow through all the nations of the earth, 
and they who drink of it will eventually recognize 
its fountainhead as the chief law giver of this planet. 
It will have the effect eventually of causing all 
nations to speak the one tongue, to establish one 
ideal of justice, and to make all mankind a common 
brotherhood in active communion. At such time it 
will not appear egotistic for the one man, standing 
at the fountainhead, to declare, " I am the light of 
the world." 

"WHAT SHALL I DO TO BE SAVED?" 

In his lecture on " What shall I do to be saved ?" 
he discourses a long while on Matthew, John and 
Luke, and then, turning to the audience, he proclaims 






20 

the startling fact that each of those writers is 
on his side. Then, in regular campaign order, he 
discusses with Mark the propriety of what Mark 
says. " When the young man approached Christ,' 7 
says Ingersoll, " he asked, ' What shall I do to be 
saved ? ' Christ answered, ' Keep the command- 
ments.' 'This I have done from my youth up,' re- 
plied the young man. Now," says Ingersoll, " there 
is a contract, and I accept it. Christ said that it was 
necessary for him to keep the commandments — and 
this he had done ; he had met the requirements, and 
that was all there was about it. But," says he, " the 
church has always been ready to do business on the 
principle of treasures in heaven for cash down, and 
so the clergy saw that keeping the commandments 
was far too easy and would bring no grist to their 
mill ; so they added that Christ further said to the 
young man, 'There is one thing thou lackest/ 
'What?' asked the young man. 'Go,' said Christ, 
' and sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and 
follow me.' " " Now," remarks Mr. Ingersoll, " Christ 
never said that. He had settled the question at first, 
and it is unreasonable to suppose that he ever made 
that addition." 

Now let us see if Ingersoll reasons rightly and 
fairly in this matter, and also to see if there is any- 



21 

thing in his reasoning that would in any manner 
justify his belief that Christ never used the words 
attributed to him. In the first place, then, it is a 
matter of importance to know whether the young 
man spoke the truth when he declared that he had 
kept the commandments, and was not Christ simply 
proving to him, by his own words and conduct, that 
he was not telling the truth ? If the young man had 
kept the commandments, then he had no God before 
Jehovah; there could have been nothing that he 
could reverence before God ; but, when he refused 
to dispose of his goods, his worldly possessions, what 
fact did he thereby illustrate? Did it not prove 
that his manner of keeping the commandments, so 
far as that he should "have no God before Me" is 
concerned, was subject to his convenience? Is it 
not clear that he would worship God at all times if 
it did not cost him anything ? Could he have kept 
the commandments, and, at the same time, his gold ? 
•Could he serve both God and Mammon ? The dia- 
logue between that young man and Jesus Christ is 
the foundation on which, some time in the future, 
will be erected the magnificent structure of Chris- 
tian civilization, in which the rights of man will be 
thoroughly and permanently established. 

It ought to be apparent to every well-thinking 



22 

man and woman in the partially civilized world, 
that the doctrine of Christ is that it is wrong to 
garner riches. 

No man acquainted with the refined reasoning 
of the ages can entertain a momentary doubt of the 
wisdom of Christ in this. No scholar, no philoso- 
pher, no statesman, can question the wisdom of Him 
who spoke thus in the darkness of the times in which 
He lived. His doctrine, although unseen by any 
other one in the world, was a philosophical truth 
co-existent with eternity itself. No nation can be- 
come rich and poor at the same time and thrive long 
enough to resist the approach of decay that follows 
it as the night the day. Athens, Rome, Thebes and 
Carthage are examples of this formidable truth, 
and, though entombed in the centuries as silenced 
wonders, yet they proclaim the truth in that awful 
silence that echoes in the grave. In all the history 
of the world there is no record of any nation that 
rose and fell, — that has crumbled into the dust of 
oblivion,— that did not do so from the baneful and 
cruel influence of the woeful contrast of wealth with 
poverty. The doctrine of Christ condemns both 
wealth and poverty, and seeks to establish an equal- 
ity in the rights of man, without which the history 
of the world declares no nation can long live. Why ? 



23 

then, can any one surmise that Christ did not mean 
to say just what is ascribed to him ? The truth of 
the matter is, that he did say what Mark attributes 
to him, regardless as to whom it may wound. 

It is, however, Ingersoll-like, to argue that he 
did not, because the infidel doctrine is really intended 
as a panacea for evil doers. I have listened to sev- 
eral lectures of Mr. Ingersoll, and at the same time 
I have noted results so far as I have been able, and 
with some exceptions, I have noticed that the men 
further from the virtues of Christianity, men of 
miserly habits, have been his greatest applauders. 
To them it was gospel indeed, for it took from them 
the possibility of punishment, that they in their 
hearts knew they merited. Ingersoll ridicules the 
idea that it is easier for a camel to go through the 
eye of a needle than for such rich men to go to 
heaven, and of course they are pleased with that 
kind of philosophy. Now let us look at that for a 
moment and see just what it is made of. Can it ever 
be right for a man to be worth a million dollars and 
never know the needs of charity ? Can it ever be 
right or justifiable for one to own so much of this 
world's goods within sound of the plaintive cry of 
starving children, and in view of suffering humanity ; 
in view of thousands that are daily giving up their 



24 

claims on life simply because they cannot gather 
sufficient wealth to supply it with its natural de- 
mands? I claim that if he retains it, knowing these 
things, he is a detriment to the world, and the cause 
of the greatest wrong to society. Suppose I should 
say that it would be easier for a camel to swim from 
America to Liverpool than for that man to enter 
within the associations of honorable men. Would 
that be an exaggeration — false philosophy and non- 
sense? When was the time, during the period of 
civilization, that a Shylock was not looked upon as 
a miserable creature, unfit to associate with men ? If 
heaven exists, whether in fancy or in fact, it must be 
governed by the law of order ; and the admission of 
disorder is an impossibility. It is possible to alloy 
silver and pass it as money; you may alloy gold, 
with the same result ; but you may not alloy Truth ; 
the moment that it is attempted it exists no longer. 
Christ spoke the philosophy of truth and reason 
when he said, it is easier for a camel to go through 
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to 
heaven. And no nation could be governed by bet- 
ter law than will eventually be built upon that very 
statement. It is a fact that in nature the universal 
law is order, and Christ must have known it, for 
nature abhors the association of order with disorder, 



25 

and has decreed the indomitable, inexorable and 
irrevocable penalty of death for its violation. 

Ingersoll condemns the idea of miracles and 
laughs to scorn any minister of the gospel who would 
deign to believe them. In this he occupies a unique 
position, and one a majority of the world seems to 
reconcile with reason. There is one mighty truth, how- 
ever, that accompanies the story of the miracles and 
of which I have never heard mention by the would- 
be debaters on this subject, and that is that no writer^ 
from the time of Christ down to the present moment, 
whether he wrote in praise of Him or whether he 
wrote to destroy His doctrine, none, neither adver- 
sary nor co-adjutor, ever denied that the miracles were 
wrought just exactly as the Bible tells us. The only 
position taken by the adversaries has been to explain 
how they were done, but never to deny the fact of their 
being done. The novel position of denying facts 
that are recorded in history, remains to Ingersoll 
himself. He has no evidence and wants none. He 
insists that his word, unsupported, shall be taken in 
contradiction to all history. Again, why does he 
deny the possibility of miracles ? 

Is it because within his environments they do 
not occur, and are not within the limited vision of 
his reason? If so, he might be excused for his 



26 

opinion, but such is not the case, for all things are 
miracles— the rising and setting of the sun, the ac- 
curate movement of the moon, stars and planets; 
the winds going where they listeth, the continuous 
and universal motion of matter, compounded in a 
ball, and its ever accurate movement as it hangs 
unsupported in space, are all miracles within the 
observation of the limited intellect of even the 
savage, yet not within the mind power of IngersolL 
All the world, and everything in it, is a miracle, all 
in motion, and if what Cope says be true, id est r 
" That matter is controlled by mind, and that mind 
is always personal," the greatest miracle is developed 
in the One Great Mind that controls all. 

In his lamentations Ingersoll seldom refrains 
from condemning that principle of forgiveness 
wherein the thief on the cross was promised a bless- 
ing. He scoffs at the idea that a criminal — a mur- 
derer, may be forgiven in the last moment. In this 
his reason is entirely consistent with his environ- 
ment and but echoes the judgment of his predeces- 
sors. There is no forgiveness in Ingersoll. The sun- 
shine of Christian charity has never penetrated into 
the dark and dismal recesses of his obscure soul. Nor 
has his brain been sufficiently alert to gather the in- 
creasing sentiment that crime is a disease, and the 



27 

criminal a subject for the hospital rather than the 
confines of the dungeon cell. Men of sobriety, of 
good judgment and true science are today developing 
the fact that criminology is properly a subject for the 
physician rather than for the hangman ! And while 
this is really the latest achievement of science, the 
same is found in the doctrines of Christ, who said for- 
give not only "seven times; but, until seventy times 
seven." If he had not been inspired, how comes it at 
that early time he could have pronounced a philoso- 
phy that it has taken nineteen hundred years for 
science to develop, and which Ingersoll has not even 
yet commenced to understand? 

FOWLS, ETC. 

In his discourse about the Holy Bible, Mr. In- 
gersoll abhors the fact that the account of creation 
shows that the "fowls of the air were made out of 
the water ; " and secondly, that the " fowls of the air 
were made out of the earth." " These stories," says 
he, " are older than Pentateuch. Among the Per- 
sians, God created the world in six days, a man 
called Adama, a woman called Evah. The Etrus- 
can, Babylonian, Phoenician, Chaldean and Egyp- 
tian stories are much the same." All this, however, 
is what is known among lawyers as simply cumulative 



28 

evidence in behalf of the Bible account. If all 
these people had the same doctrine, they must 
also have had the same origin, and any court 
within the domains of jurisprudence would hold 
that the proofs submitted by Ingersoll establish 
the Bible's case beyond doubt. 

" The Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and 
Hindoos have their Garden of Eden and the Tree of 
Life; the Persians, the Babylonians, the Nubians, 
the people of Southern India, all have the story of 
the fall of man and the subtle serpent. The Chinese 
say that sin came into the world by the disobedience 
of woman, and even the Tahitans tell us that man 
was created from the earth, and the first woman 
from one of his bones." This is also cumulative 
evidence, and, whether or not it proves the Bible 
account to be true, it is such proof as cannot be used 
for any other purpose. 

Mr. Ingersoll complains bitterly because some 
lines or phrases are where others should be; in 
other words, that some phrases have changed 
places, and should therefore be wholly discred- 
ited. It does not occur to him that the Bible 
has been handled above two hundred times; that it 
has been handled by printers, typesetters and scribes 
for many centuries, of whose infallible integrity and 



29 

honesty he does not assume to even have a sus- 
picion. In the first instance, he complains because 
it is alleged that the Bible gives two accounts of how 
the birds were created — of the earth and of the sea. 
Of course, it makes a great difference to him which is 
right, for he would not tolerate a mistake for a single 
minute, if he knew it ; and then he claims that the 
mistake is a serious one. He also seems wise in that 
the mistake was that of the author, and not by any 
other person or persons. 

I sometimes wonder if Mr. Ingersoll has ever 
been misrepresented in print — whether he has ever 
known a printer to make a mistake. The contra- 
diction of which he complains is exactly the same 
contradiction that exists in Mr. IngersolPs own be- 
loved gospel — Evolution. Mr. Darwin insists that 
life had its origin in protoplasm, found in the sea ; 
while M. Treamaux insists, with equal accuracy, that 
it did no such thing, because, says he, " life origi- 
nated in the dust of the earth." It is supposed that 
both are right. 

I have no disposition to bring into ridicule the 
virtues of science, or even such theories as develop 
into science. I entertain the highest respect for the 
learned gentlemen in whose scientific hands rests the 
lever that is intended to move the world. But what I 



30 

do object to is just what true scientists object to, i. e., 
the burdening of true science with such facts and 
fancies as arise in the minds of truth -perverting 
men, whose designs are to the detriment of men. 
The science of geology holds its own admirably for 
about a mile beneath the earth's crusts, and has dis- 
closed many interesting results ; but when the infer- 
tile and jejune brain, that makes itself more promi- 
nent by its ignorance than by its learning, attempts 
to go into the business of world-building with a 
desire to outdo Moses, I am forced to interpose an 
objection. There is a great deal of meaning in what 
Paul said, when he cautioned his followers to " be- 
ware of sciences falsely so called." If Mr. Ingersoll 
is determined to measure our cloth, it is but reason- 
able that we should know that his measure is a 
correct one, and if, by examination, we find it is not, 
we have a perfect right to reject it. 

He claims to know that the story of the flood is 
three thousand years older than the Book of Genesis. 
To what great authority does he ascribe the source 
of his knowledge ? A part of his religion is geology, 
and from this science he borrows the learning he so 
confidently expresses. This is the yard-stick by 
which he measures and presumes to set aside the 
Scriptures, and thus perfect civilization. If it is 



31 

right for him to try the Scriptures by this science, it 
is just as well and proper that the opposition should 
investigate those so-called sciences, and see what 
relation they bear to reason and sense. In the first 
place, then, his geology is obtained from the lowest 
depths of the abyss of heathen superstition, and, 
after being dressed in modern type, is adopted into 
the civilized world by one William Smith, an Eng- 
lishman, in the year 1815. It partakes of Chinese 
and Hindoo geology. The Hindoo geology teaches 
that the Brahm occupied a thousand yugs, or 4,300,- 
€00,000 solar years, to hatch the first egg. Among 
other worlds hatched, was ours, consisting of seven 
islands, of which we occupy the central one. This 
island is surrounded by a sea of salt water. The 
second is surrounded by a sea of sugar-cane juices. 
The third is surrounded by a sea of rum. The fourth 
by a sea of clarified butter. And so on, through 
curds and sour milk, until eventually we strike a 
sea of sweet water. The highest mountain is several 
miles high, and is located in the middle of the earth. 
Its shape is that of an inverted pyramid ; it bears 
rose apples and mangoes, the size of elephants. The 
juice of this fruit is what makes our rivers. 

The Chinese are more liberal in their views, 
and less wasteful of years. Among the Chinese, old 



Pwanku is said to have created the earth in 18,000 
years, and then laid down and died. His whiskers 
turned to stars, his veins and arteries into rivers. 
This creation is placed upon the back of an elephant, 
and the elephant is placed upon the back of a turtle, 
while the poor turtle stood erect upon nothing. 

Modern geology teaches that the earth is made 
of strata, one upon the other, and these strata all rest 
upon a molten sea, and the sea rests upon nothing. 
The creed accompanying that gospel is evolution — 
a science, if true, that is made up of a classified 
knowledge of principles that are supposed to be the 
results of all knowledge. 

Geology is built upon theory, while theory is 
built upon assumption, or upon nothing. But I 
should be very careful in what manner I permit 
myself to discuss this sacred subject, because many 
of the brainiest men of the age teach it as an evi- 
dence of how much their heads will hold. No one 
ever sees an evolutionist who does not appear as 
though he was, or is, all-wise, and knows more about 
the subject in one minute than Moses knew in all 
his career. But, unfortunately, among all these 
would-be competitors with Moses, a feature, stranger 
than the fiction itself, is the ever predominant fact 
that, from the first of their class of great men down 



33 

to the present time, there are no two of them that 
agree upon the subject. In discussing this subject 
with Professor Cope, of the University of Pennsyl- 
vania, I asked him if he could mention the names 
of any of his predecessors in this science who agreed, 
and the Professor replied that Darwin was uncon- 
tradicted. But the Professor had overlooked the 
doctrine of M. Tremaux, who took especial pains to 
contradict Mr. Darwin in the most essential particu- 
lars. The Professor is authority upon this subject; 
in fact, he is recognized as the modern Darwin, and 
quite his equal. Another and' a surprising fact is, 
that most of the followers of Darwin — they who 
believe in evolution — do not know what evolution 
really is, and few of them, indeed, but believe at 
least twice as much as Darwin ever dared to assert. 

" Let the earth bring forth the living creature 
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast 
of the earth after his kind: and it ivas so" (Gen- 
esis, 1 : 24 ) 

There is no account of creation more ancient 

than this quotation And no science, philosophy or 

theory originating in the cultivated intellect of man 

has so far been able to destroy the truth of this 

Mosaic. The doctrine of evolution, as pronounced 

by modernity, would suggest the idea that the 
3 



34 

Mosaic was untrue, and claim for itself the praise of 
having discovered the origin of mankind. 

The above quotation has to deal with animals 
other than mankind, while evolution seeks to prove 
that the animal kingdom was the channel through 
which man ascended to his present intellectual 
sphere. Evolution does contradict the Mosaic ac- 
count of creation in many essentials, but in no way 
more than evolutionists contradict their own writings. 

So learned have been the writers on this subject 
that productions from their pens seem to carry con- 
viction, and he who reads, ex "parte, is almost sure to 
become an evolutionist. A deal is considered knowl- 
edge, when, in fact, it embodies nothing but opinion 
or conclusion. The predicate is ofttimes elegantly 
written, while the subject itself is entirely ignored. 
The text is forgotten in the embellishing of the 
context. 

On a correct understanding of principles or 
elements only can pure knowledge rest. And yet 
the atmosphere is chilled with learning founded on 
myth and guess, that disappear under the rays of 
the sunlight of truth. 

Evolution is taught in the school, and the 
present younger generation believe that they origi- 
nated from the monkey, and, hence, that their 



parents are more brute than they. What an enno- 
bling thought ! I know many persons who believe 
in evolution, but never met but one who did so who 
knew what evolution really is. That man was Pro- 
fessor Cope, who was, perhaps, the leading evolu- 
tionist of the age. 

When I suggested to him that I believed that 
evolution, when properly denned, was "the origin of 
life, and its gradations up to a degree of perfection," 
he affirmed it. I then asked him if he knew the 
origin of life. He said he did not. I asked him if 
he knew the perfection of life. He said he did not. 

If, then, the theme is properly defined, and by 
a short analysis, ignorance is confessed of both the 
beginning and end of the definition, what of value 
is left? Simply this: the "gradations" of life, or 
life under the law of variation. 

What a slim foundation, indeed, for so much 
talk, and that, too, scientific. 

" Beware of science falsely so called," said Paul, 
and I might add that this science is of the kind of 
which Paul spoke. What is in this world that is 
not subject to the laws of variation ? 

If everything is subject to this law, why special- 
ize man, and, by such law, interpret that he came 
from the ape? The law itself is proof against it. 



36 

But this is an elementary fact or principle with 
which evolutionists do not, and possibly cannot ? 
deal. With conclusions only is what they deal. 

That living creatures have only yielded their 
kind, and that man was no exception, is as true 
today as w T hen Moses wrote, subject only to the inex- 
orable law of variation, which the modern philoso- 
pher has apparently but recently discovered. Such 
a fact as evolution, properly defined, could not exist 
It would be a physical impossibility. 

The strangest feature of the doctrine is that so 
much is believed on so little knowledge, and on 
conclusions contrary to the facts they themselves 
deduce. They will tell you life originated in a 
moneron (a speck of protoplasm), and their object is 
to trace life from its present condition back to said 
moneron. How strange, that, when they get back 
to the time when they should find the smallest of all 
small things, the mastodon or elephant occupies the 
spot ! The more antagonistic the fact the stronger 
their belief in their theory. No one ever saw a 
moneron, and yet all writers differ on the number 
of them. Differences of opinion by authorities on 
this subject is a very common thing, indeed ; for no 
writer from Anaxamander to the present time stands 
uncontradicted. 



37 

But, as is usual, the most unreasonable must 
obtain with the theorist, and the more the proof one 
way the more they believe the other. 

On one occasion, Professor Cope lectured to a 
large and intelligent audience, composed of followers 
of the faith, on the subject of " Man's Relation to the 
Animal." The first thing he said was that there 
were 2,000,000 species, and then he selected just two 
individuals, the Gibbon monkey and the ancient 
lemur, and proceeded with his discourse. What the 
rest of the 2,000,000 resembled was nobody's busi- 
ness. It was enough if two things could be found 
on which to rest the imagined science of evolution. 

" The Gibbon monkey," said he, " has a hind 
foot and a lower jaw like a man." It did not matter 
what the rest of that individual was like ; this was 
enough for the faithful. When he approached the 
lemur he claimed that it was necessary to obtain an 
ancient specimen, as it was a better evidence than 
the modern specimen. 

How so ? Should not the modern specimen be 
better evidence, or has the animal degenerated into 
man? 

There is no theory or science in the attempted 
revelation of the origin of the animal kingdom, and 
of man, that bears more relation to good sense than 



38 

the doctrine of Moses. No fact has ever been shown 
that successfully contradicts his account, except such 
as are founded on "science falsely so-called." 

Similarity does not prove the case. Resem- 
blance may indicate that kind has yielded its kind, 
as Moses said it would. 

But the fact that man and the monkey were 
made with the same quantity of water and sand 
does not prove that one evolved from the other, so 
much as it does prove that both originated from the 
common mother, the Earth, which contains the same 
characteristics. 

Spencer says that the earth will continue to get 
hotter and hotter and will then fly into the sun and 
be finally destroyed by the heat of that body, while 
Prof. Winchell, of Michigan, proclaims to the world 
that such is not the case at all, but quite on the con- 
trary, it will freeze up. Winchell goes so far as to 
tell us about the last two men, standing alone in the 
entire world, holding consultation over the matter 
as they stand there viewing the tomb of nature. 
What thoughts will fill their minds as they behold 
the great event ! And then one of them dies, and 
the other fellow stands there all alone, the only man 
in the entire world. Of course Ingersoll, like unto 
his followers, believes, with absolute confidence, both 



39 

the stories. He believes in anything to which he 
can refer, when trying to condemn the Mosaic ac- 
count of creation, and the more doubtful it is the 
more he believes it. I think it was Humboldt and 
Sir Humphrey Davy who tried to get to the North 
Pole, from whence they intended to look through a 
hole and see that molten sea in the middle of the 
earth. But eventually they decided to save the great 
expense of travel by believing the fact anyway. The 
world will never know, however, how much it has 
lost by their failure; for had they seen that sea in 
the middle of the earth Spencer would have been 
spared the trouble of declaring that there was no 
molten sea there at all, but that the earth is filled 
with gas. It don't really matter, as the followers of 
these men swallow the whole business without so 
much as a grin of dissatisfaction. 

" 0, ye of little faith," was never meant for our 
own dear Robert. 

And so on, almost without end, is the grounded 
philosophy of Ingersollism dependent upon faith of 
superstitious and heathen origin. And yet he con- 
demns faith as worthy of benign punishment, and 
accredits to it all the cruelties of the world. 

The most ignorant and superstitious Christian 
in the world is undoubtedly endowed with a large 



40 

portion of faith, faith in the doctrines that have 
brought from beastly humanity a civilization such 
as we are enjoying today. It may be blind ignor- 
ance upon which his faith is founded ; but how will 
that compare with the amount of faith a man must 
have to believe that all the life of the world that in- 
corporates and surrounds us originated from a mone- 
ron, a protoplasm, a speck of albumen the size of a 
pin's head. And yet Ingersoll has faith enough for 
that, and at the very moment, too, when he con- 
demns the other fellow. If your minds are not clear 
as to who has the most faith, just try to believe that 
all the life of the world came from a speck the size 
of a pin's head, and see if you do not call upon more 
imagination than any man in the universe should 
have. No civilized man can originate so much 
belief on so little knowledge in any other avocation 
of life. 

I shall not attempt to cite all the contradictions 
that come to the surface when stirring up this Inger- 
soll bugaboo, but only a few, as illustrations. Among 
these great men are M. Unger, a world builder in 
regular business, and he says "that by the cooling of 
some basalt, he has accurately determined that it 
took nine million years for the earth to cool suffi- 
ciently to admit of vegetation. But Mr. Hilbert, 



41 

with equal accuracy, says that is a mistake ; for, says 
he, it only took five million years. But another 
scientist settles the whole dispute by declaring that 
the whole business is wrong, for it took the earth 
three hundred and fifty million years to cool." Of 
course they are all right about it. 

Still one feels like asking : " Where wast thou," 
Mr. Ingersoll, " when I laid the foundations of the 
earth ? declare, if thou hast understanding." " Who 
hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or 
who hath stretched the line upon it ? " " Whereupon 
are the foundations thereof fastened ? or wholaidthe 
cornerstone thereof ?" 1 am satisfied that Mr. In- 
gersoll cannot answer these questions, nor can any 
scientist that* ever lived do so. They are as preg- 
nant with meaning today as they were the moment 
they were first asked. But there is one question that 
we also find in Job which it is the especial right and 
privilege of the wise mortals to answer, and it is : 
"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without 
knowledge?" For with this they are certainly ac- 
quainted. 

SCIENCE. 

Within the past year many people were uneasy 
about the rumor that a comet would strike the earih, 



42 

and it was corroborated by the man on the astro- 
nomical ladder. It was such a well settled fact that 
persons were cogitating as to what would be the re- 
sult of so great a catastrophy ; but when the jejune- 
brain of the wise man was awakened to the fact that 
the comet had disappeared, they immediately pro- 
ceeded to explain the phenomenon with as much sang 
froid as though they indeed knew something about it. 
They were, of course, on the right side to avoid dispute ; 
but in fact and in truth, the Oriental shepherd boys, 
with brains half asleep, could have reasoned quite as 
well, and that, too : without awaiting results to guess 
from. Such conditions and results are but the weak- 
nesses of humanity, inwoven in our nature by that 
creeping and destroying disease — atheism — originat- 
ing mainly in diseased intellects and transmitted 
from generation to generation. It is a mortgage on 
humanity that enslaves and starves the tenant, and 
that brings ill bred things into the world. 

Agnosticism is the cowardly side of atheism. A 
creature that finds pleasure in denying its right to 
think or believe, and at the supreme moment when 
action is demanded of it, rigidly proclaims itself deaf, 
dumb and blind, without will to see or power to un- 
derstand. It is always found on neutral ground. 
Elevating itself on monumental heights it views the 



43 

bloody conflicts of the world, devoid of all interest 
in the results, but when danger is removed, and the 
storms of adversity have gone, this character may be 
seen beside the graves of the heroic dead, and with 
fingers touching, there emanates from his little soul 
the squeaky words, tl Verily, verily, am I thankful I 
did not participate in the fray." He is one whose 
whole life is spent in cashiering anything good or 
bad that comes before him with the " I don't know." 
In political government he is a parasite. In relig- 
ious matters he is a nuisance. And on the whole, 
he is only tolerated because of the charity of the 
Christian religion, a principle he never fails to con- 
demn. 

It is a story told of some of the people in the 
upper part of one of our Northern States, that, until 
lately, the, belief was current that geologists could 
tell how many years the snows had laid on the tops 
of the highest mountains. It was said that on one 
mountain the snow had laid for a period of three 
years, and this remarkable exhibition of geological 
knowledge was demonstrated by the plausible fact 
that between each layer of snow there was a layer of 
leaves, that had fallen from the trees, which fact, if 
proven, would satisfy most inquiring minds. 

But, unfortunately, some one asked, " Where 



44 

did the leaves come from, if the snow laid there all 
summer, and how is it that there is just three years 
or layers of snow?" And thus the theory was ex- 
ploded, and I imagine no one believes it today. 

HUMANITY. 

Mr. Ingersoll proclaims to the world that his 
religion is " Humanity." In other words, the only 
God the redoubtable Robert acknowledges is Hu- 
manity; for he, himself, is not without the criticism 
he takes from Voltaire and uses as and for his own, 
namely, " That an honest God is the noblest work of 
man." How he can use that quotation advisedly I 
do not understand, for surely he does not indicate 
the knowledge of any God whom he considers honest, 
save, of course, his own created sphinx, " Humanity." 
And to question the honesty of humanity would to 
him appear as a sacrilegious and unjustifiable slan- 
der. Madam De Stael, however, was bold enough 
to say that l< the more she associated with men the 
more respect she entertained for dogs." There are 
many people in the world who are quite as well 
acquainted with humanity as Mr. Ingersoll, and 
who know the virtues of his proclaimed religion. 
Many realize that the natural condition of humanity 
closely allies it with the brute creation, minus the 



45 

virtue of the brute instinct. Humanity's chief law 
has always been the success of the strongest. We 
realize, in our journey through life, that one of the 
ruling passions of strong men is to care for them- 
selves at the expense of the weaker. There is 
scarcely a man, woman or child to whom this un- 
pleasant fact is not apparent every day of their lives. 
The lordly or the favorites of fortune have always 
ruled with an iron hand, regardless of the unspeak- 
able sufferings of the multitudes. But a few years 
ago, in this country, under the Stars and Stripes that 
had been wrested from the cold-blooded grasp of 
monarchy, slavery existed, and was actually pro- 
tected by law. The crack of the slave- owner's whip 
and the baying of the bloodhound was quite as 
familiar to the aristocratic and elevated people of 
the South as was the humming of machinery to the 
ears of the people of the North. It was right to own 
your fellow man, with power to chain him to the 
whipping post and lash him until his African blood 
should mark the spot where he stood ; and this was 
in peaceful unison with humanity. 

The pure, sober and wise doctrines of Jesus 
Christ, that, if understood and practiced, would lead 
mankind up to the mount of virtue, love, freedom 
and equality, have been dragged in the mud and 



Z 



46 

mire of iniquity for hundreds of years by the savage 
nature of humanity that, emerging from savage 
darkness, has lived through all the centuries the 
self-same uncontrollable character of harshness and 
selfishness, growing rich and corpulent on the fail- 
ures and misfortunes of its kind, while serving the 
Devil in the livery of Heaven. It was said that 
David said, " I said in my haste, All men are 
liars." I am prone to believe that in his mo- 
ments of leisure he might have said the same 
thing of natural man, with equal justice, both to 
himself and humanity. It is not "man's inhumanity 
to man that makes thousands mourn," but rather 
man's humanity to man that makes millions mourn. 
If Ingersoll is right, and humanity is good, why was 
not civilization introduced into the world first, and 
humanity second ? Civilization is the purification 
of mankind, but if humanity is good it does not need 
civilizing. The very fact that civilization is a 
growth is proof positive that humanity is not, and 
never was, up to the highest standard. With all 
the civilization we at this day enjoy, it is still neces- 
sary to weed from humanity the cruelties that even 
now dominate the race. Laws must yet be made, 
with terrible penalties attached, in order to keep 
man somewhere within the pale of civilization, and 



47 

it is safe to observe that the sun never yet shone on . 
the hour when humanity would not subjugate be- 
neath its tyrannical, cruel nature, any or all things 
that tended to elevate its kind. If it were really 
possible, it would be very difficult for the best 
mathematicians to foretell the number of years of 
the future that will be required to entirely civilize 
in an. 

Humanity is barbarous, wicked and cruel today, 
yesterday and forever in the past ; and yet this is the 
■only God to whom the proud Ingersoll doth bow. 

Among all the gods of heathen origin— the sea 
gods, the earth gods, the peace gods and the war 
gods, the famine gods and- the feast gods, the sober 
gods and the drunken gods, the gods of pestilence, 
the gods of tempests, the gods of day, and the cruel, 
wicked gods of darkest night — there can be found 
no god so abject, vile and mean as Ingersoll's god, 
Humanity ! 

HISTORY. 

History really commences in Egypt. The back 
door of that ancient government opens on a dark 
and dismal void. From it there seems to come 
nothing, save one thing — a long string of conso- 
nants, no vowels, and no spaces to separate the words — 



48 

but it is as a bridge that touches the life that is, with 
the life that was. We look at it, and wonder what 
it is. Eventually, however, we discover on it and 
around it is this legend: "This is God's word." 
When perused, mankind saw that it contained law — 
law that regulated their being. Rabbii at that time 
were counsellors, and interpreted the law for the 
benefit and uses of the masses. 

If it was divine, if it was prophecy, and of in- 
spiration, it was now as a precious child fallen into 
the den of hungry and angry beasts. It was now 
upon the charge of humanity, entrusted to the care 
of man, whom it was to civilize. The beast that was 
to be tamed had its trainer entirely within its power, 
a subject of its clemency. But time rolled on, and 
this manuscript was read and re-read, written and 
re- written, and finally passed down the centuries for 
our perusal and approval. 

And while millions are rejoicing over it, while 
millions are civilized by it, and the earth is scented 
and perfumed with the delightful odors of the 
flowers of virtue and charity, that grow so profusely 
from its teachings, behold the bold and embittered 
Ingersoll lashing it with his whip of Atheism. He 
knows no ameliorating circumstances that encrust 
its origin, its care, or its destiny. But in the best 



49 

ianguage that lie can borrow from his antecedents, 
from the time of Pharoah down to the present, he 
strives to lash into fury the human passions of the 
age by an exhibition of the passions of humanity of 
the past. 

Humanity vs. Christianity is a case that has 
been on the calendar for trial ever since the birth of 
Christ. It has been the problem that has engaged 
the minds of all generations since. Oceans of blood 
have been shed in the controversies. 

Nations have arisen and fallen as a consequence. 
In fact, the struggle of Christianity against the mad 
and bestial nature of man may be likened unto an at- 
tempt of one trainer to train all the wild and ferocious 
animals of a primeval forest; and yet with all this 
in view, Ingersoll does not seem to know that there 
is any difference between the contestants. He stands, 
as it were, on a monument, and witnessing the ter- 
rible struggle, in the very crisis of war he is heard 
to ask: "Is there any difference between them?" 
The struggle of Christianity among the Fiji Island- 
ers was of recent date. " So late as 1844 human lives 
were the cheapest article in their human markets. 
It was customary to buy or sell a human life for a 
mere trifle ; but now that the islands are dotted with 
about twelve hundred churches, the price of a human 



50 

life has risen to the value of the life of the buyer or 
vender." Here, within the past fifty years, the learned 
Ingersoll could have witnessed one of the struggles 
between Humanity and Christianity. 

One of the difficulties of the progress of Chris- 
tianity, in the past, has been the growth of language, 
and it is on this difficulty that Mr. Ingersoll finds 
his strongest support. He makes no allowance for 
its growth, but argues as though language had 
always been just what it is today. There are a few 
people who might read some of the essays of Sir 
John Maundeville, that were written in 1322; some 
of the essays written by Sir Thomas Mowbray, in 
1450 ; some of the essays written by Hugh Lattimer, 
in 1470 ; or some of the essays written by Sir Thomas 
Bove, in 1480; but such readers are few and far 
between. And yet they were all written in the best 
English of the times in which they lived. It is 
supposed that Shakespeare wrote the best English in 
his time ; and yet it would puzzle many people to 
read Shakespeare's original manuscript, written by 
himself. 

When comparing the original with the latest 
edition, the great difference is apparent. For all 
that, would any person be justified in saying that 
Shakespeare is a myth and never in reality existed, 



51 

and, hence, did not write what was attributed to 
him? 

The fallacious reasoning of infidelity that the 
" law of self-preservation is the first law of nature " 
accords entirely with all the rest of its teachings, 
and illustrates its depth of thought. 

The law of self-preservation is not the first law 
of nature, and I am seriously in doubt whether it 
is a law of nature at all. The law of self • preserva- 
tion was never necessary until the law of death came 
into the world, and it was this law that made the 
law of self-preservation possible ; hence, it could not 
have been the first; it is at least the second, and a 
creation or enactment to meet the necessities of man 
in his struggle against death. Fear is the means 
by which the law is exercised. Fear prompts its 
action and guides its course. 

ROBERT BURNS. 

We find Ingersoll in laches when, in his lecture 
on Robert Burns, he makes it convenient to omit, in 
that oration, what to the minds of most men is the 
greatest of all the productions of Scotia's bard. I 
refer to the poem entitled, " Man Was Made to 
Mourn." There can be but one excuse, but one de- 
fense, to this apparently wicked and unjustifiable 



52 

conduct towards Burns, and that is, that Jesus Christ 
had said, " Blessed are they that mourn, for they 
shall be comforted ; " and Burns' soul is poured 
forth in classic lore, filled with that sentiment. If 
Christ had not said it, there is little doubt but that 
Ingersoll would have realized in that poem food for 
his entire oration. The verse alluded to is as follows : 

"Yet, let not this too much, my son, 

D'stufb thy youthful breast; 
This partial view of human kind 

Is surely not the last ! 
The poor, oppressed, honest man, 

Had never, sure, been born, 
Had there not been some recompense 

To comfort those that mourn ! ' ' 

Did ever mortal quarry a thought or sculpture 
it into beauty with defter hand, with finer grace, or 
with greater art, than that ? 

Where can we look for a man in this age with 
soul so small that he could not recognize the rap- 
turous eloquence of Burns, as he stirs up the very 
blood ? Who among men could read Burns without 
pausing to contemplate its' majestic beauty ? Who, 
I ask, but Ingersoll ? But, my friends, how do we 
know but that he claims it as an interpolation, and 
that Burns did not write it at all ; that someone else 
wrote it; no matter who, but presumably some 
bachelor of the Nunnery ? 



53 

SHAKESPEARE. 

This kind of literary partisanship is not a new 
thing in Ingersollism ; for, in his lecture on Shakes- 
peare, he does not pay tribute of his oratory to Avon's 
sage without sacrilegiously trespassing upon his 
memory. He fain would have you believe that the 
inscription on Shakespeare's tomb, in which occurs 
the name of Jesus, was not written by the bard; 
but that it is an interpolation. '' Walking around 
the tomb, at Stratford-on-Avon," says he, " I read 
that inscription, and I said to myself, Shakespeare 
never wrote that, but Sir John Hall, Shakespeare's 
son-in-law, wrote it." With what spirit did the 
mighty Ingersoll commune to obtain such important 
information? With which of the Gods he loves so 
well, did he hold converse ? 

By what power was he inspired, that he could, 
by a single swoop of his universal self, glean from 
the sealed archives of the past this great secret? For 
centuries, the curse pronounced in that inscription 
on anyone who would " move his bones," has served 
to protect it, and the bones of the immortal Shakes- 
peare still rest where they, by loving hands, were 
first placed. During all the ages that have come 
and gone since, no monarch, no savage, and no 
traitor has been so vile or inconsiderate as to incur 



54 

the volume of curses that meets the eye of all spec- 
tators; but it is left intact, as it was written, await- 
ing the vandalism of the Nineteenth Century to rob 
it of its protective force. On the eve of the present, 
before the day-dawn of the Twentieth Century, al- 
most at the moment when the centuries are exchang- 
ing places, do we behold vandal so bold and so 
tragic. The immortal Shakespeare must enjoy so 
dramatic a denouement. But, happily, it is but the 
statement of Ingersoll, without reason or cause, with- 
out confirmation or truth — a slander, a robbery of 
the helpless dead, in which men of accountability 
will never take part. 

Ingersollism indoctrinates in men a belief that 
nothing short of absolute liberty is their due, and 
that by not having it, they are deprived of their 
natural rights. Such a thing as absolute liberty does 
not exist anywhere in the known world. 

The stars are restrained to their circuits ; the 
earth itself has its axis, while every other thing in 
the earth is circumscribed. Sometimes the ocean 
may be seen, as it rolls its tempestuous billows high 
in the air, gathering its white crests in sportive beauty, 
and then breaking on the shore into thousands of 
majestic splendors, making it appear an exception, 
and that it does enjoy liberty absolute; but at another 



55 

moment, it may be seen, mournfully and sullenly, 
breaking on the shore, subdued and controlled. 

The passions of mankind, at times sportive and 
gay, risiug and falling, gathering the white crests 
of hope and charity as though there were no limita- 
tions to its joy, suddenly, ah, sometimes too suddenly, 
they break upon the shore of despair and of despond. 

It seems to me that I can appreciate the feelings 
of Byron, when, standing within sound of the surf- 
beat, the earth-beat, and the heart- beat, he said : 

" There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, 
There is a rapture on the lonely shore, 

There is society where none intrudes, 
By the deep sea, and music in its roar : 

I love not man the less, but nature more, 
From these our interviews, in which I steal 

From all I may be, or have been before, 
To mingle with the universe, and feel 
What I can ne'er express, yet cannot all conceal." 



KD-17 > 







11 ■ -tu* -JfMp'S. •>-_.* 










'A: W :#Sfc %S -'£& \/ 



OOBBSBROS. aV *>* 

LIBRARY BINDING 



ST. AUGUSTIWC. «*5§sSW» ^ C ♦W2%*>* ^ ^ •^SSttW.. 



ST.JUJGUSTINE 
FLA. 

^^P'' 32084 




^ •■ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 774 226 3 






